(though I pointed out that she had first been found guilty in an earlier report)

She was not found guilty. It was an intilial report, like an accusation. After the probe and investigation was over she was found innocent. So shame on everyone who smeared her. And believe the media went nuts on Palin, not just for that, but for everything.

Well it sounded like the initial report did say she was guilty of ethics violations regardless. What things did the media go nuts on that wasn't based around fact? It was a fact that Troopergate was happening, it is a fact a report came out saying she had ethics violations. Suppose she had been found guilty. Wouldn't the media have been in the wrong not have reported things sooner that Troopergate was happening? How would you have liked it if on election day, after voting, you found out about this thing called Troopergate and that she was guilty? The purpose of the news is to keep us informed and so the news was doing its job by letting us know that Troopergate was happening.

Going back to ACORN (yes again!) We don't know the facts of whether ACORN is guilty of willfully engaging in voter fraud or if it was just a few corrupt individuals taking their own initiative. Yet we are arguing here that it was bad for the press announce Troopergate was happening. The two events are actually remarkably similar, both are based on facts (with ACORN voter fraud did occur, with Palin people did get fired), with ACORN it is unknown if it was deliberate policy, with Palin it was unknown if it violated laws.

Again I put forward the question that has yet to be answered: who determines what news is fit to be reported on and who decides when the news can be released?

Quote:

And the media was never conservative. Not in the last 20 years. Unless of course you have a report to prove it.

I don't have a report to prove it. Do you have any reports to prove that the media wasn't conservative the during the entire past 6-8 years? Since you brought 20 years up do you have any report to support that claim?

I still stand by the news being conservative. Most of the news reported was favorable to Bush most of his term, and ignored making a big deal about his faults until he hit record approval rating lows. As I saw it the news was anything but liberal. Maybe I read different news from you but the media loved Bush for a long time, and more over, when any media came out opposing him it was immediately decried by the people as un-Patriotic or wanting the terrorists to win.

As I saw it the Republicans forced the news to shut up on anything that opposed their position and rallied the people to brand any news or people that didn't comply as un-Patriotic or terrorist loving. I won't rule out the possibility that the majority of the media is liberal but it sure as heck was silent during most of the Bush administration. I guess you can claim that I've been delusional for the past 6-8 years if you want._________________

Last edited by Salaris Vorn on Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:54 pm; edited 1 time in total

Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:41 pm

Message

AutobonMaster

Joined: 17 Apr 2008Posts: 751

Salaris Vorn wrote:

but it sure as heck was silent during most of the Bush administration

Are you kidding? It most certainly was not silent during most of his presidency. Bush has been ripped like no president before him has. Some things he has done he most certainly deserves our anger, but as far as i am concerned i havent really read anything good he has done. Have you?

And seperate note, Obama's "change" Washington plan is far getting thrown by the wayside. Just today, from abcnews, we find out that Obama has offered the White House chief of staff job to Rep. Rahm Emanuel. This is guy is veteran of the Clinton White House and is deeply tied in to what Obama refers to as the "same old tired politics" of Washington.

I knew this was going to happen though. Obama is like any other politician, he just so happens to sell off "hope" better then most others.

Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:04 pm

Message

Salaris VornModerator

Joined: 02 Feb 2008Posts: 2362Location: New York, USA

Autobon wrote:

Salaris Vorn wrote:

but it sure as heck was silent during most of the Bush administration

Are you kidding? It most certainly was not silent during most of his presidency. Bush has been ripped like no president before him has. Some things he has done he most certainly deserves our anger, but as far as i am concerned i havent really read anything good he has done. Have you?

I would argue that many of the things he did were initially heralded as good for the country and that he was protecting us. For example, at the time of the Iraq War starting it wasn't seen as bad, its only been reported bad after he botched it. This was all inspite of what is now being reported that indicates data may have been manipulated or ignored when making the decision.

I'll give you points that now the media is eating him alive, justifiably so in some cases. However, when things got started he was usually praised for it and it was only after something went south when he would get blamed. Even then the media wasn't received well when it started publishing about the faults of the war._________________

Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:17 pm

Message

Mara Jade SkywalkerAdministrator

Joined: 15 Feb 2008Posts: 6278Location: Beyond Shadows

Personally, I don't think you can tell the media what to report on. That would infringe on the whole 'freedom of speech' thing. I wish there were more conservativeish groups like Fox, but then...again, I suppose they'll have to pop up of their own accord. Hmm...touchy subject._________________"It's not about the legacy you leave, it's about the life you live." ~Mara Jade Skywalker

Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 5:03 pm

Message

MasterAndrew15Administrator

Joined: 22 Oct 2007Posts: 944Location: United States

Quote:

You're being very presumptuous that I'm not aware of the news and it sounds like you're basing that on the fact that I'm liberal minded.

No, every source of information in the great state of New York is, save one or two papers. If Obama is going to make this country change, how? What is his change? Or, is that too foolish for me to want to know? Heck, it doesn't matter-- it's going to sound nice to someone he wants to please anyway.

Quote:

Its not like the rich our evil or anything...their just rich...the point is...the health system fr the poor...and the college fees fr a poor/middle class family aint exactly cheap...all Im saying is that when Obama says that his ideas actually make sense.

Guess what-- the taxes in America are paid by rich already. We have many, many people on the welfare system who can work they just choose not to. They are LAZY. I don't need to give you my money if I don't want to because A. I earned it and B. It's mine to spend. You didn't work the hours I worked; you didn't miss the family events I did.

Ya, but look at how it was done in the past. The wealthy helped start schools, they built libraries, etc. They did things to help people succeed, they didnt just hand out welfare.

Exactly-- People helping other people succeed is amazing, but the other person has to want it too. They can't just think everything will be done for them; it won't . If I want to give money to a charity it's my business, not the government's. In capitalism if I make it I have the right to choose ow I help other people-- not Obama,not Biden, not anyone but me.

Quote:

And pretty much all of Europe is socialist to one degree or another unless I've completely gotten my facts wrong. So far they seem to be doing a lot better than we are

But guess what they all have as a common factor: they all use capitalism. Why Because socialism does not work-- it's pretty and nice on paper, as is communism, but it does not work alone and the only way to allow it to even have a chance is to allow some capitalism, like many communist and socialist countries have and do It doesn't work the other way around, however, and socialism cannot help capitalism, only capitalism can. Our President doesn't control the economy, we do. The youth of America want too much and they have been taught they can always have it, which is why we're having this issue; banks giving loans and the people know they can't pay it back but still think they are entitled to it._________________ EUCantina.net Founder. Forum Admin.

His policies are good and he's the president so no matter how people feel he's our president the U.S. elected him _________________

Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:41 pm

Message

MasterAndrew15Administrator

Joined: 22 Oct 2007Posts: 944Location: United States

Just because he's elected doesn't make him competent What policies do you feel are good, exactly? (I'm just wondering-- you don't need to answer if you want; I just want to know why people feel so comfortable with him when so very little is known about him.)_________________ EUCantina.net Founder. Forum Admin.

His wealth distribution policy scares me. From what I've heard him say about it and from what I've read of political analysis on the subject, it just seems to be those paying taxes and working giving money to those who don't in order to even everything out, and equality when there are those who aren't equal or who won't take action to be equal is called what peopl? That's right, communism. I'm a little scared of Obama actually. He seems to favor a 'do what feels good' society, and that in and of itself requires that we move the line on what is and isn't okay to do. If we allow that then we allow anything to become a hate crime, we allow legalisation of druge (possibly), and possibly many other things that we wouldn't be completely comfortable with. And no, I don't believe in hate crimes. I think that if you kill someone it shouldn't make any difference what color their skin is cause the facts are that you killed someone. Hate crime furthers racism, it just allows it in a different way.

Having said all this, I wasn't overly fond of McCain either. I just thought he was the lesser of 2 evils in this election. Personally I was a Huckabee fan. If he'd have been nominated I'd have voted for him. Also, I actually might've voted for Colbert if he'd been serious about running. His political views lie more in the middle and he's more concerned about the nation as a while. A lot of people wanted him to run and when he announced it a lot of people were happy. Then when we all found out it was just one big joke a lot of people were mad. Oh well. This was a terrible election to vote in. The only historical thing about it is that a black man is in the white house and I'm okay with that except for the fact that he got elected almost completely based on the color of his skin. A lot of the younger generation (unfortunately, my voting age groun) voted because he was black, or because he did spots on MTV and not because they agreed with or even knew his politics. Its a sad, strange world we live in when both candidates can be this bad. Poor McCain. Poor America. Heck, even poor Bush. Poor world right now _________________Perfection is a lifelong pursuit requiring sacrifice. The only way to get it quicker is to sacrifice the most.

Exactly SoS! A friend of mine wants me to move to Canada with him. I probably won't, but that wealth distribution thing still scares me pretty bad...nightmare about losing money and watching hobos drive Mustangs on my dollar will haunt my sleep! It probably won't be that bad, but still, terrifying._________________Perfection is a lifelong pursuit requiring sacrifice. The only way to get it quicker is to sacrifice the most.

I'm not one to go along with the war we're in right now. We should've never invaded Iraq. Granted, we've done some good, but now its time to leave and we can't. I don't think Obama will be able to fix that. Nations might develop better foreign relations with us, but then again his policies may also just make us look weaker. I hope not, and I'm trying to be optimistic about him, but I'm still nervous._________________Perfection is a lifelong pursuit requiring sacrifice. The only way to get it quicker is to sacrifice the most.